https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14001 The court held that the gratuity payment to the managing director was not disallowable under section 40(c) if it exceeded the limit under section 10(10)(iii), but could be claimed as expenditure under section 37 if it met the conditions of being for the purpose of business. The decision aligned with previous rulings and clarified that such lump sum gratuity payments at retirement fall outside the scope of section 40(c) and can be claimed under section 37. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:34:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14001 The court held that the gratuity payment to the managing director was not disallowable under section 40(c) if it exceeded the limit under section 10(10)(iii), but could be claimed as expenditure under section 37 if it met the conditions of being for the purpose of business. The decision aligned with previous rulings and clarified that such lump sum gratuity payments at retirement fall outside the scope of section 40(c) and can be claimed under section 37. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14001